Skip to main content

Full text of "Srimad-Bhagavad-gita"

See other formats


SRIMAD-BHAGAVAD-GITA 

WITH THE 

"JNANAKAKMASAMUCOAY'A" COMMENTARY 
OF ANANT)A[VAEDHANA] 



Edited, from an unique Sarada Ms., hy 

S. K. BELVALKAR,M.A.,Ph.D. } 

with an Introduction discussing the Problem of tiio 
"Kashmir Recension" and Two Appendices 




P N V : 

BILYAKFNJA TVULlSUINii i-)i si' 



SRIMAD-BHAGAVAD-GlTA 

WITH THE 
"JNANAKAKMASAMUCCAYA" COMMENTARY 

OF ANANDA[VAKDHANA] 



Edited, from an unique Sarada Ms,, by 

SHRIPAD KRISHNA BELVALKAR, M. A,, PL D., 

Sometime Professor of Sanskrit, Deccan College, Poona, 
and Benares Hindu University 

with an Introduction discussing the Problem of the 
"Kashmir Eecension" and Two Appendices 




Published on the u GItajayanti" 
November the .29th, 1941 

POON A: 



iCED ON THE SHELF 




ger, Pratibha Press, 
. oo^a 2 ; 

and ( Introduction, pp. 5 ft.' ) by S. E. Sardesai, B. A., LL.B., 
Saraarth Bharat Press, 41 Budhwar, Poona 2. 

Published by Dr. S. K. Belvalkar, 810 Shivajinag ar, Poona 



All Rights Reserved by the Editor 



First Edition, 600 copies, November 1941 



s. 7: , >T>7 1 



J'o? 1 copies apply to 

Manager, Bilvakunja Publishing House, 
810 Shivaji Nagar, Poona 4. 



CONTENTS 

Introduction 

Bhagavadglta with the Commentary 

Appendix 1, s^Rint JF^^T ^r *jj%; * 21 

Appendix 2, 
Errata 



Y; fo 1 I ^ I <J-^; ^ I YY I V-H; V ! V9 
-^; HI & I *; H I ?W| Y~\3; t, | ?< j| ?? _ 

-Y; \\^\ ^-Y ^9 | K | ^-? o IS | 6 



; U; 



INTRODUCTION 

I feel sincere satisfaction in being able to place into the 
ads of students and lovers of the Bhagavadgita, on the 
casion of this year's "Gitajayantl", the present edition of a 
re and hitherto unpublished commentary on the Gita, whicb 
e author himself styles the "Anandavardhim", and which 
ofesses to expound and establish the "JiHnakarmasamuccaya'*' 
the Doctrine of salvation through coordination of knowledge 
id action. The expectancy created by the name, viz., that the 
ommentator may be the famous rhetorician Anandavardhana 
dr. 850), the author of the Dhvanyaloka, receives, Ijowever, 
rude shock when we find from the concluding stanza of the 
>mmentary that the Commentator belongs to a much later 
sriodj A.D. 1680. The stanza in question runs thus 



inanda, it will be observed, is the author's personal name* 
rhich, from his partiality for the name "Anandavardhini'* 
hosen by him to designate the present commentary, seems- 
bviously to be a form shortened to suit the metre. 1 Unfor- 
unajtely, the initial part of the commentary on the First 
^dhyaya of the Bhagavadgita, where personal details about 
he author, his family, his teachers and predecessors, should 
lormally have found a place, is lacking, and as to the colo- 
phons at the end of the several chapters, they are all given, 
n a very brief form except in the following two places. At 
:he end of chapter iv the colophon reads 



1. Even the Rhetorician Anandvardhana's name was wont to be 
shortened into Ananda, e. g., by Rajasekhara : Kavyamimansa, p. 16 
( Gaekwad Or. Series ), 

1 [ Anandavardhim ] 



6 BHAGAVADGlTA WITH ANANDAVARDHINI 

At the end of chapter xvni the details in the colophon slightly 



zrmsi^s 

. There is also a more or less independent philosophical Intro- 
duction or Upodghata given by the Author before the begin- 
ning of the commentary proper and intended to set forth and 
establish the doctrine of Jnanakarmasamuccaya, metaphysically 
grounding it on the Saiva Tantrism as current in Kashmir 
from the days of Abhinavagupta onwards. Here the Bhagavad- 
glta is compared to the Vitasta, 'which, by its pure, placid 
stream washes off all impurities and bears testimony to the 
truth of the doctrine that knowledge, in combination with 
action, achieves salvation'. So, too, by way of a Prasasti or 
concluding benediction at the end of his work, the author 
quotes an octad of stanzas expatiating on the merits of the 
Jnanakarmasamuccaya theory, the composition of his Teacher, 
wherein again there is a feeling reference to the Vitasta which 
altogether dispenses with the need of visiting any other holy 
places of pilgrimage'. This is the only personal detail that 
emerges from both these parts, and it warrants the supposition 
that the author and his teacher had for generations lived on 
the banks of the holy river Vitasta (modern Jhelum m the 
Panjab), leading a quiet life of study and meditation._ We 
can also further conclude from this that the specific inter- 
pretation of the Bhagavadglta as advocated by the Commentator 
had a long and worthy tradition behind it. 

The present edition of the AnandavardhinI is based upon 
a solitary Ms. of the commentary written on paper in Sarada 
characters and acquired for the Government of Bombay by 
E G Bhandarkar in the year 1883-84. The Ms. as no 
deposited in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute and 
is designated No. 179 of 1883-84. The commentary proper 
written on folios numbered 1 to 87, and is preceded by folios 
numbered 1 to 8 giving the Upodghata. The concluding par 
of the Upodghata and the initial part of the commentary dowi 
to chapter n, stanza 6, is lacking : and the loss is irremediable 
as no other Ms. of the commentary is known to exist. 



INTRODUCTION 7 

Placed along with the Ms. and written by the same scribe 
and on paper of the same quality is the Ms. of a work called 
the Gltasara with a commentary. The last few lines of the 
commentary are wanting and there are also occasional lacunas 
in it, which however can be made good from another Ms. of 
the work, namely No. 176 of 1883-84, also written in Sarada 
characters and presumably acquired from the same province. 
This Gltasara commentary is called the Brahmasambodhim : 
and is by one Sridharacarya, the pupil of Narasimha. 

Thejnterest which attaches to the discovery and publication 
of the Anandavardhin! springs mainly from the circumstance 
that, until very recently, we had no commentary representing 
the Jnanakarmasamuccya interpretation of the Bhagavadgita. 
As is well known, the Sankarabhasya on the Bhagavadglta 
quotes and refutes in more than one place the views of earlier 
commentators. For example ( Anandasrama ed., 1909, p. 27) 



ftftrats* 

Per contra, Sankara's own position is ( p. 32) 

37 



A samuccaya or coordination, according to Sankara, is possible 
only where the two factors are equipotent ( tulyabala ) and ' 
are regarded from start to finish as equally indispensable 
in the production of the final result. Sankara refuses to 
accept such a continuous and unbroken alliance between 
knowledge and action upto the very end. In fact he regards 
knowledge and action as mutually contradictory entities 
like light and : darkness. As darkness cannot coexist with light > 
but can form, at the most, the normally indispensable pre- 
condition for the coming in of light, so he is willing to admit 
karman as ancillary to knowledge : as helpful in purifying the 
intellect prior to its being illumined by the sun of knowledge. 1 



1. Cf. Gitabhaya (p. 91) 

i fNrrat ft 



"8 BHAGAVADGITA WITH ANANDAVARDHINI 

A man of knowledge, according to Sankara, cannot also be a 
man of action: and if there be persons like Janaka who, having 
achieved the summum bonum through knowledge, are seen, even 
in that "Jlvanmukta" condition to continue in action, that is to 
be regarded as an automatic reflex occasioned by the unspent 
momentum of tendencies acquired prior to knowledge, or, if 
you will, as the outcome of a mere wish not to shock the 
-social conscience by violently breaking away from the beaten * 
track. Compare ( Ibid 3 p. 155 ) 



Sankara seems to forget that, on his own premises, such a 
"cikirsa" or "parijihlrsa" in fact any kind of desire is 
as inconsistent with true knowledge as any "ought" or 
<c ought-not" any vidhi or nisedha concerning action. 

In his Brahmasiitrabhasya on iv, i. 16, Sankara takes up 
a position which is still more compromising. While com- 
menting : upon the sutra, Agnihotrddi tu taikaryayaiva> tad- 
darsanat, he observes 



: I ^HT^R^^Tc^ ep Of: I 



But the wording of the sutra : tatkarydya-eva would not warrant 
the proposed cc upacara" or secondary use of words. 

The Jnanakarmasamuccaya view as propounded by Ananda- 
vardhana maintains, on the point at issue, quite a distinct 
thesis. The view lays down ( Upodghata, lines 39 ff . ) 



INTRODUCTION 



And it goes so far as to declare that knowledge by itself can- 
not constitute a way to salvation on a par with the way of 
knowledge-cum-action ( lines 82-83 ) 



The hold of the "Nitya" karman on the individual cannot 
in fact be slackened except during the last few moments of 
his life, when (Upodghata, lines 278 ff.) 



If the man has lived his life well, and with faith in God, his 
last thoughts turn to God nay God himself thinks of him 
during these last moments and the man eventually wins 
emancipation ( Anandavardhim, p. 143 ) 



Elsewhere (p. 133 ) we read 



This involves a total denial of the state known as the Jivan- 
mukti, which Sankara would regard as the one unimpeachable 
deduction from Upanisadic texts like Atra Brama samasnute 
( Katha n. iii. 14). Against the Jnanakarmasamuccya thesis as 
above given Sankara could have aptly quoted the "Pandaka- 
upakhyana" reply from the Yogabhasya on n. 42 



C This knowledge and perfection in Yoga is forsooth not able 
to secure emancipation during the continuation of life. To 



10 BHAGAVADGlTA WITH ANANDAVARDHINl 

it would secure the soul's emancipation is an idle hope, not 
destined to be fulfilled." In short, if Sankara can be said, in 
his interpretation of the EG, to have over-emphasised samnyasa 
or renunciation, our commentator's view no doubt committed 
the same mistake with respect to action. 

Assuming that Anandavardhana, our Commentator, cor- 
rectly represents the old pre-Sankara Jnanakarmasamuccaya 
view, 1 it is obvious that the word jnana in the phrase 
Jnanakarmasamuccya is taken by him in a sense quite different 
from the one normally given to it by Sankara. To Sankara 
the jnana or the Highest Knowledge is the same as Brahma- 
saksatkara, the full-orbed vision of the Brahman in the 
condition of samadhi s which secures immediate release or 
emancipation. After realising Brahman in the samadhi, the 
individual, stepping out of the samadhi, may apparently carry 
on, like Janaka or Suka, his normal vyutthita-vyavahara, or 
activities of living, wakeful life, for years on end ; but he no 
longer is the same old individual. The actions that he may 
be seen doing (whether they be mere functional activities 
necessary to keep body and soul together, or whether they 
concern the administration of a kingdom ) no longer have the 
power to fetter him. Like burnt seeds they are incapable of 
germination and fruition. The accumulated actions of earlier 
lives (the sarhcitakarmani ) also do not fetter him. It is only 
the actions that have actually commenced their process of 
fruition resulting in the present body, that have to be permit- 
ted to complete that process to the end. Compare the Brahma- 
sutrabhasya(Anand. Ed., p. 1067) 



It is doubtful if Anandavardhana would have endorsed this 
view. In his commentary on iv. 36, lines 7-9, he seems to 

1. The assumption seems to be legitimate. Even in the interpreta- 
tion of a passage like Chandogy a Up. II. 23. 1, the Commentator is found 
to be upholding a view which, Sankara tells us in his Bhaya on the passage > 
was the one advocated by the old "Vrttikara". 



INTRODUCTION 11 

have advocated it, but if that was his real intention there, that 
would be clearly inconsistent with the view he elsewhere 
maintains ( Upodghata, lines 257 ff . )' 



The Commentator tells us that if an individual has in the 
present and the previous lives acquired sufficient perfection 
in Yogic practices of the type detailed in the Third Pada of the 
Patanjala Yogasutra, it is possible for him to simultaneously 
assume a number of bodies, and through each of these bodies 
hasten the process of living out the ensuants of his past 
accumulated karmans. Compare v. 17, lines 4 ff. _ 
I 



g*rerrfir 

The mumuksu or the yogin endeavouring thus to hasten the 
process of achieving the summum bonum does not bother 
himself as to what body he chooses to re-animate whether 
it is that of a pious Brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog or a 
dog-eater provided it helps him to live out the ensuants of 
his past karmans. 1 In this way it will be seen that in the pro- 
duction of the ultimate end emancipation Yoga in its more 
mystic and even weird aspects and practices is given by our 
Commentator an altogether disproportionate emphasis, which 
of course fully accounts for the several wholesale quotations 
* from the Yogasutras and from the Vyasabhasya thereon, which 
take up pages after pages of the Anandavardhim. 3 Saivite 
Tantrism, as we know, played a distinctive role in Kashmir 

1. It is in this specific Yogic sense that our Commentator interprets 
the fine stanza ( v. 18 ) "Vidyavinayasampanne " etc. 

2. The Jnanesvari, the Maharastra saint's well-known commentary on 
the Bhagavadgita, affords a parallel in this matter. 



12 BHAGAVADGITA WITH ANANDAVARDHINl 

from the tenth century onwards and even much earlier; and 
under the circumstances one can understand how of the three 
things that, according to our Commentator, mark out the ideal 
man of the Gita, viz. (i) a scrupulous I had almost said over- 
punctilious discharge of the appointed religious rites-; (ii) an 
apperception of the true knowledge of the Highest Being 1 as 
consisting of a unity compounded out of the fourfold aspect of 
Prakrti, Purusa, Kala, and Isvara; and (iii) an adept's practical 
acquaintance with the Yogic mysteries ( which, if not properly 
controlled, could easily degenerate into the Tantric excesses 
of the Kapalika and other sects ), the first and the last came 
to arrogate in this view all attention and importance. It is not 
without some historical justification, therefore, that in the 
eleventh-century Sanskrit Play named the Prabodhacandrodaya> 
Dambha the Hypocrite in Act II and Somasiddhanta the Saiva 
Occultist in Act in are represented as the arch-enernies of 
Advaita Vedanta. 

This Jnanakarmasamuccaya view; of our Commentator has 
of course to be distinguished from another Jnanakarma- 
samuccaya view which, since the publication of B. G. Tilak's- 
Gltdrahasya (1915), seems to have stepped into lime light. 
This modern view accepts jfiana unreservedly as the means 
of salvation. It also recognises the possibility of the Jivan- 
mukta condition, and pleads that from these premises it should 
not necessarily follow that, after the dawn of the sun of 
knowledge, actions as such must necessarily cease, unless life 
itself has to cease. In the word Jivanmukta we must, it is 
contended, lay equal emphasis on both the elements that make 
up the compound-word. Emancipated life must not hence be 
life regarded as an unavoidable evil, not worth the wise man's 
care or concern ; but, just BECAUSE it is emancipated life, it 
should be an ideal life, such as would set an example for 
the others to follow. So long as the formless, impersonal 
Brahman was to be the object of concentered meditation, an 
utter disregard for worldly duties was a natural, though not 

1. Cf . Upodghata, lines 43fL~ 



INTRODUCTION 13 

the only legitimate, deduction. But the substitution of the 
personal Godhead for the impersonal Absolute and the admoni- 
tion to follow in the wake of God's own footsteps, which are 
of course the cardinal tenets of the Bhagavadglta, brought in 
their train the idea of lokasamgraha and sarvabhutahita as the 
hall-marks of emancipated life ; and this in its turn paved the 
way for conservation and progress of human society. These 
obligations, however, it must not be forgotten, came in, not as 
impositions from without, but as free, unfettered workings- 
out of habits acquired and tendencies formulated in the pre- 
illumination stage. 

This view, as distinguished from the normal Advaita 
doctrine of naiskarmya or renunciation of actions, has the merit 
of not being compelled to give one kind of advice (viz. action) 
for the p re-illumination stage and another ( viz. renunciation) 
for the post-illumination stage. Even-poised action is its 
sole watchword > which becomes an injunction or vidhi in the* 
state prior to the dawn of illumination, but only an anuvada^ 
a matter-of-fact description, of the state succeeding the illu- 
mination. In this view the question as to whether Arjuna was 
or was not a Jnanin or an adhikarin for salvation becomes of 
no moment at all, as the Bhagavadglta has not one set of 
rules for one man and another for another. "Even-poised 
Action" was its panacea, the 'action' being determined by 
the Sastra, while the 'poise' was attained through practice 
and meditation. 

Having thus far considered the main thesis of our Com- 
mentator, viz., the Jnanakarmasaniuccya as advocated by him 
as also the form in which it is being advocated in modern times, 
let us pass on now to consider Ananda as a Commentator. 
What strikes one here at the very outset is that Anandavardhana 
does not give the current nomenclatures for the several chap- 
ters of the Bhagavadglta, which to judge from the variant 
forms under which they are given in the Mss. of the Poem 
seem to have been the creations, not-.of the author of the Gita 
himself, but of some early commentator. Ananda does not 
accept the interpretation implied by that nomenclature,, 
but in stead has an original scheme of his own for dividing 
2 [ Anandavardhini ] 



14 BHAGAVADGITA WITH ANANDAVARDHINI 

the Poem into three parts of six chapters each. He says 
(Upodghata, lines 69 ff.) 



ft iftar i 

Also at the beginning of his commentary on Chapter xin 
he says 



etc. 

The Commentator has not, however, succeeded in showine 
that his tripartite division holds good except in its very broad 
features. The scheme, while capable of explaining away some 

' Ue S ^ ^ G!t5 ' dOCS n0t wo* out in 



s,id Ungt V he , COmmentaryin detdls ' Ananda can t be 
said to have offered any original or brilliant exposition of 
any specific parts of his text. In one or two places where r* 
attempts ,t (e.g., ii. 30) he does not carry conviction We h .ve 









Sf 8a S e > particular 
" 



C mparehis '""arks at the openj 




>ng of Chapter IX. 



INTRODUCTION 15 

Sankara, trying to prove the self-inconsistency of the Com- 
mentator whose view he combats asks 



This should warrant the supposition that Ananda had access 
to certain Commentaries similar to those attacked by Sankara 
in his Gitabhasya. Ananda evidently held these Commentators 
In high esteem. 

It is curious to note that Ananda refers to a Gita Com- 
mentator of the name Sankara (v. 18. 1), speaking of him with 
scant courtesy, even when compelled to agree with him. This 
may refer to Sankaracarya himself. 

In Appendix 1, I have listed together the names of works 
and authors which are cited by Anandavardhana in his com- 
mentary. None of these names call for any special remark. 
The Commentator quotes the Prapancasara, a Tantric work 
wrongly ascribed to Sankaracarya and included amongst his 
Collected Works. Our Commentator's real service, however, 
consists in his having diligently collected together, from the 
Markandeya, Visnu and other Puranas, and from the Maha- 
bharata itself, passages supporting the Jnanakarmasamuccaya 
view. The name of Apararka, the twelfth-century commentary 
on the Yajnavalkyasmrti, deserves to be singled out. From 
this it would be necessary to conclude that the Jnanakarma- 
samuccaya view which Sankara tried his best to combat held 
the field long after the days of Sankaracarya ; and that not 
only in Kashmir and the Panjab, but also in the Maharastra. 
The Commentator's detailed knowledge of Saiva Agamas and 
Tantras is what was to be expected under the circumstances. 

The Glta text on which the Anandavardhini comments is 
the so-called Kashmir Recension of the Bhagavadgita, for 
which Professor F. Otto Schrader 1 has claimed not only 
intrinsic superiority but even authenticity and priority to the 
recension of the Poem preserved for us in the pratipada or 
word-for-word Bhasya of Sankara covering 643 out of its 7CO 

1. The Kashmir Recension of the Bhagavadgita, Stuttgart, 1930. 



16 BHAGAVADGlTA WITH iNANDAVARDHINI 

stanzas. I have already tried to combat Prof. Schrader's thesis 
in a paper published by me in the New Indian Antiquary 
Vol. ii, No. 4, July 1939, pp. 211 to 251. Owing to the present 
international situation it is not possible for me to know 
Prof. Schrader's reply to my arguments (assuming that they 
have caught his eye). In India other scholars have expressed 
their views on my arguments, 1 and certain new aspects of the 
problem have in the meanwhile suggested themselves to me 
in the course of my Glta studies of the last two years, so that 
a re-statement of my arguments seems to be called for; and 
I take the opportunity afforded by the publication of another 
new commentary on the Kashmir text hailing from so late a 
period as the seventeeth century of the Christian era to 
review the broader aspects of the problem, avoiding repetition 
where it can be avoided. 

The contention of Schrader that the Sankarabhasya on the 
Glta was unknown in Kashmir in the days of Abhinavagupta, 
and the doubt cast on the authenticity of that Bhasya as a work 
of Sankara can no longer stand when it is proved that prede- 
cessors of Abhinavagupta such as Rajanaka Ramakavi ( alias 
Ramakantha) and Bhaskara, both commentators on the Bhagavad- 
gita, give unmistakable citations from the Sankarabhasya. 
Ramakantha' s date follows from the circumstance that his 
elder brother ( see the concluding verse of the Sarvatobhadra), 
Muktakana by name, was patronised by Avantivarman of 
Kashmir (855-883 : see the Rajatarangini v. 34), and as Ramakavi 
himself was a pupil of Utpala, the author of the Pratyabhijna- 
sutras, he must have been senior to Abhinavagupta who was a 
pupil of Utpala's pupil Laksmana. Ramakavi can accordingly 
be plausibly assigned to cir. 875-925. Professor Chintamani 
has^ given a few extracts from Ramakavi' s commentary, 
criticising views of earlier commentators, and at least one of 
them (apud x. 16) 

1. Prof. T R. Chintamani in his Introduction to the edition of 
Ramakantha's Sarvatobhadra published by the University of Madras, 1941, 
and Prof. C. Kunhan Raja in his Introduction to the edition of "Upanisad- 
Brahmayogin's " Commentary on the Bhagavadgita, Adyar, 1941. 



INTRODUCTION 17 



very probably refers to Sankara's 



But If there be any doubt about Ramakavi citing the Sankara- 
bhasya, there can be none about Bhaskara having done so : see 
Chintamani's Introduction to the Sarvatobhadra, pp. xxviii- 
xxix. One of the parallels given by him may here be repro- 
duced as a sample' ( BG. ii. 21 ) 



Bhaskara 



Sankara 



From the style and from the disparaging way in which he 
refers to the Mayavada Commentator there can be little doubt 
that Bhaskara whose commentary ,on the Bhagavadgita has just 
come into light is the same as the author of the Bhasya on 
the Brahrnasutras published in the Chowkhamba series ( 1914). 
This Vedantin Bhaskara is plausibly assigned to cir. 950, 
leaving more than a hundred years between him and Sankara- 
carya a time sufficient for the interposition of one or two 
other commentators between him and the Acarya. 1 Abhinava- 
gupta for whose earliest and the latest known works dates 990-1 
and 1014-15 A.D. have been assigned 2 quotes Bhatta Bhaskara 
as an earlier and authorive commentator on the Bhagavadgita 
( apud. xviii 2) 

1. That Vacaspati quotes from Bhaskara is not proved, seeing that the 
only actual quotation so far adduced, namely the stanza 



u 

is itself a quotation in the Bhaskarabhaaya, where it is designated as a 
Sarhgrahasloka. Moreover, it is to be noted that Bhaskara 's time was suffi- 
ciently near that of Vacaspati (840) for the thirteenth-century Amalananda 
to mistakenly imagine that the Bhamati was referring to Bhaskara, whereas 
actually it might be referring to a predecessor of Bhaskara. 

2. See K. C. Pandey : Abhinavagupta : Historical and Philosophical 
Study, Benares, 1935. 



18 BHAGAVADGlTA WITH ANANDAVARDHINI 



ftr^sfirfa 



It is supposed by some that this reference is to another 
Kashmirian Bhaskara, who was also the author of a commentary 
on the Bhagavadglta ; but it is unnecessary to multiply entities 
in this fasion. Bhaskara was sufficiently senior to Abhinava- 
gupta to warrant the latter calling him "praktana" and give 
him the respectful designation of Bhatta-Bhaskara. 1 In any 
case, whether we assign Bhaskara to 950 A.D. or to 750 A.D., as 
this Bhaskara unmistakably refers to Sankara's Gitabhasya, 
Schrader's contention that the Bhasya and the Glta text under- 
lying it were unknown in Kashmir in the days of Abhinava- 
gupta can no longer be maintained. 2 

^ ^ Secondly, let us consider the question whether the Kash- 
mirian Gita-text is intrinsically superior to the Safikara text. 3 
We have in Appendix 2 placed the two recensions in parallel 
columns to facilitate the comparison. On the point at issue 
we have to note, in the first place, a number of passages where 
the Kashmirian reading seeks to regularise the grammar, as for 
example 

ii. 54^ sfihi' for srtcf (Atmanepada) ; 

ii. 60* ^?R*nft for *RRf: (Parasmaipada) ; 

vi. 39 fl 1$ $ SRT4 (for neuter ^^) ; 

vii. 18* s?Fft csmlte ft *RT: (for neuter *RHO ; 

ix. 14 6 -~^^^RF SWcTT: for ^RFcra (Parasmaipada) ; 



1. It is unfortunate that the existing fragment of Bhaskara 's commen- 
tary does not cover stanza vi. 7, where a Bhaskara is reported to have chang- 
ed the Glta reading par am dtmd samdhitah into pardtmasu samd matih. 

2. It is possible that Abhinavagupta himself, apud iii. 15 

etc. has Sankara'a e 



etc. -in view. Cf . also his references to earlier views in ii. 59, 
iv. 24, 34, vi. 25, viii. 6, ix. 23, xiv. 14, etc., and the corresponding Sankara 
passages. 

3. The comparison should be with the Sankara text which differs in a 
number of placee from the Vulgate, by which latter term the text under- 
lying Nilakantha's commentary is meant. 



INTRODUCTION 19 



xi. 37* T ^3: for *W^( Atmanepada) ; 
xi. 41* % H% ^ for ^%% (wrong vocative) ; 
xiv. 23 d ^ gf^rgKT for^S3TW3 (Parasmaipada) ; 
XVm 4& qr f^r^ for Ffrtf*cf (Parasmaipada) ; 
xvi. 13 6 ^RT srrs^t ^R^for ^ (neuter) ; 
xvii. I 6 ^T^% for 3F3F& (Atmanepada). 

Here, according to the accepted canons of textual criticism, the 
grammatically irregular reading as preserved in the Sankara 
text is likely to be the authentic one. In a few instances of 
course this canon works against the current Sankara reading, 
as for example- 

vi. 16* rf sr&RRf: (for the regular WsreKT:) and srf^nTOcr: 
(for 



xviii. 6 SRT$ (Atmanepada) for 1%^% with change of verb 
But such instances are relatively few in number. 

Secondly, the Kashmirian reading seeks to improve the 
syntax, for example 

v. 21 6 *Tc^ ?j^r (requiring the understanding of extra 

words to complete sense) changed into V: ?pc^; 
v i. i3c_^^ changed into H^^, the Present Participle, 
to harmonise with 



ix. \\ d ^wtw^ , which has to be construed with *rt in 
the first pada, changed into 3T^ ! ^3 : T3 : tf ; Fr^(=vii. 2) 
to agree with the immediately preceding noun 



x< g a > b Change of the 'Indirect' forms ^t and *ra: into 
rt and ??r: the 'direct' forms, in view of the 
following ^Rt W^T ; 

Xf 28 C srsf^^TfeFT changed into srsRwrftir to supply the 
genitive case, although in the singular : 
explains Ananda ; 

involving the double samdhi 



3Tf T% or f^T% 4 3Tf T%) changed into 

xviii. 8* ^ wf changed into W ^ to agree with the 
following *T: ; 



BHAGAVADGITA WITH ANANDAVARDHINl 



xviii, 50 "^snstftf which should have been ^TTlfrfi-r ^TTj chang- 
ed into ^wtf^r, the word ^ being capable of going 
with the preceding ^iT. 

Thirdly, the Kashmirian reading attempts to improve the 
se, the attempt not rarely defeating its intended purpose. 
a few typical examples may be mentioned 
ii. 21^ !psr% ff^^T 36W3^ for ^ sTTcfsrfir fFct 3*^. On this 
see my remarks in the New Indian Antiquary, 
1939, p. 221, 

ii. 43 C * ^sr*Tcft: *r% for the singular nm 5T%. The 
change was due to a failure to understand the 
peculiar use of the preposition prati. See NIA, 
p. 244. 

ii. 61& cRTO for T$R: I The Sankara reading seems to make 

a sudden intrusion of Krsna 5 s divine nature when 

the ground for it was still unprepared. But as the 

second chapter is meant to summarise the entire 

Gita teaching and so already envisages Krsna' s 

ultimate point of view, such an important tenet 

could not well have been passed over when a 

suitable opportunity had presented itself. 

iii. 22 STWcfssr ^ 5}*RT% for ^ ^ ^ c^fo? would appear 

at first sight to be an improvement in sense ; but 

Krsna does not here wish to say that he is taking 

to action, but rather that he is carrying on and 

continuing the action already taken up. This is 

well expiessed by the Sankara reading. 

iv. 7^ srToJThf for srrsRR 1 as demanded by the ^3^5T theory 

advocated by the Commentator : see p. 14, before. 

xi. 11* T^*WMT*R^t for ^T^T . The word malya may 

primarily demote flowers, but it also denotes 

garlands, especially chaplets for the head. 

xi. 18*~ ^n^^trar for WWWifiBT. Here the Kash- 

mirian reading appears to be authentic, although 

it is not supported by any Mss. outside Kashmir. 

On the other hand, that Krsna is the stay and 

support of the c 'Eternal Law' * is found stated in 

xiv. 27 in both the recensions. 



INTRODUCTION 21 



xi. 42 C ^*ma for ^ smtf. The word cf^ has nothing 
to which it can refer, and Sankara takes it as an 
adverb. On the other hand "in the presence of 
good people/' the Kashmirian reading, is sing- 
ularly inappropriate. "In the presence of other 
people" is what is wanted. 

xiiL f^RT%^forI%RT^:S The Kashmirian reading 
at once cuts the gordian knot of the problem as to 
what Brahmasutras are here meant. With the K. 
reading the problem does not arise at all, because 
we are told that the Brahmasutras determined 
made a Samanvaya of the scattered Upanisadic 
utterances : and only one "Brahmasutra" could 
have been intended. It is however doubtful 
whether the Gita is here so unmistakably referring 
to our Brahmasutra. I prefer to understand 

rv rs. *\ 

%: tftcf^as an assertion referring to 



the pre-Badarayana Brahmasutras (more than one) 
that may have once existed. 

xvi. 8<* STT%%^ for the more or less meaningless f^*^. 
xvii. 13 snjsi^ 1 for s^HM. Compare my remarks in the 
NIA, p. 228. What the context requires is that 
in the Tamasa sacrifice there should be no anna at 
all, just as there is, in it, no mantra, no dak$ina> 
no vidhi, no sraddha. Improper or uncooked food 
cannot have been here intended, as the Kashmir 
reading WJOT^ = TOStf^f^Rf T%W^ implies. 

Having thus far examined the alleged intrinsic superiority 
of the Kashmirian readings, we now take up the last problem 
bearing on the issue, namely, the presence in the Kashmirian 
version of a number of extra stanzas : "fourteen complete and 
four half stanzas." This is hailed forth as an indication of 
the authenticity of the text, because the current Gita text of 
700 stanzas falls short of the 745 stanzas which, according to a 
statement found in some Mahabharata Mss., the Gita once had. 
A third part of the deficiency will thus be made good by 
accepting the Kashmir version. The Gondal Editor makes 
nearly the same number of extra lines equal to 21 stanzas, as 

3 [Anandavardhim] 



22 BHAGAVADGITA WITH iNANDAVARDHlNl 

some of his stanzas contain only two padas ! If assistance of 
other Mss. were to be sought in this connection the following 
additional stanzas could have been enlisted for the purpose- 
After ii. 59 the Javanese text adds 



After viii. 11 an old Devanagari Ms. adds 



After ix. 5 another Devanagari Ms. adds 



After xi. 27 a& a 



solitary Kashmir Ms. adds 

f f\ f\ 



After x. 36 the Nepal Ms,, and after x. 37 the Javanese version, 
add the following extra stanza 



After the extra stanza at the beginning of chapter xiii, the 
Gondal Ms. has another extra stanza superadded 



u 

At the end of chapter xv a Devanagari Ms. adds 

If 

g I cPE^T 
At the end of chapter xviii the Nepal Ms. adds 



This would in all add 7 complete stanzas and 1 half stanza to 
the total; to which we can also add the Gitapra&sti of 54 
stanzas (which is responsible for the 'Riddle' of 745 stanzas) 
and reduce the deficit still further. And for the rest, we have 
to await the chance discovery of some Ms. giving the Glta of 



INTRODUCTION 23 



the required extent 1 ; for, spT^ST mf R^mfig^T ^ ^^ft ! But 
will such a discovery solve the actual riddle ? 

In this connection I may be permitted to refer to my 
paper, 2 "The Bhagavadgita 'Riddle' unriddled", the exact 
point of which has been missed. The 'Riddle' has come into 
existence because of the "Gitamana" lines 

o) 



u 

Several Mss. give the three stanzas of the Gitaprasasti 
^TRrr ^t^TT etc.), but omit the above 1 J stanza of the Gitamana; 
while a very large number of reliable Mss. omit both the 
Prasasti and the Mana. The stanzas cannot be regarded as an 
authentic part of the Mahabharata. Thus the 'Riddle' is not 
a Mahabharata riddle at all ; and the attempt to solve it is an 
attempt merely to explain under what circumstance the specific 
additional stanzas might have been inserted into a few copies 
of the Mahabharata, mostly hailing from Kashmir. If this is 
clearly understood, the significance of the, stanza 

trftraW =3 I 




which invariably follows the computation or Gitamana state- 
ment, must not be ignored. It is a badly worded stanza ; but it 
certainly means to state that Krsna taught Arjuna both the Gita 
which is the quintessence of the Mahabharata, and the Gitasara 
which is the quintessence of the Bhagavadgita itself. The 
solution of the Riddle suggested itself to me because this 
Gitasara stanza invariably came after the computation. The 
riddle, it is necessary to remember, cannot be solved by the 
mere chance discovery of a Gita Ms. giving 45 extra stanzas, 
like the extra stanzas of the Kashmir recension ; because the 

1. Report of the existence of such a Ms. at Dhulia has turned out to be 
false. Gondal reports not only the existence of the Ms., but its being made 
ready for publication, which we have been expecting to be out all these 
months. 

2. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. xix, 
part iv, pp. 335-348. 



24 BHAGAVADGlTA WITH ANANDAVARDHINI 

computation is a detailed one, giving so many stanzas to such 
and such a speaker ; and this cannot happen unless, amongst 
other things, Arjuna's excess is reduced and a corresponding 
addition made to Samjaya's total. I found one or two very 
good Mss. omitting the reference wzffi srarfcr after i. 27**, and 
*fcf3T 3W$ after i. 46, so that this part of my "Mathematical 
operation' ' in the paper above referred to had absolutely 
nothing unnatural in it. 

To pass on to the next stage of the operation, that certain 
Anustubhs can consist of six padas IF the completion of the 
sense demands it, is also not against the canons of the 
Chandah-sastra ; and I have resorted to this process only in 
those cases where the completion of the sense demanded it. 
I have gone through the whole of the Gita from that point of 
view, and have not been able to find therein any other Anus- 
tubhs capable of this kind of treatment except the ones actually 
singled out by me : see footnote 1, p. 147 of my paper. In the 
Epics, the Puranas and the Dharmasastras such six-quarter 
stanzas are by no means unusual ; and after Ramakavi's distinct 
statement apud xi. 30 

etc. 



the process by which I took certain stanzas not any and every 
at free will as made up of six quarters is not a thing that 
would not have suggested itself to, or would nof have been 
already adopted by, scribes and computators. 

That I was not able to smooth over the small, obdurate 
excess of two stanzas at the end of my "complicated Mathe- 
matical operation" was due to the fact that I had no idea as to 
the exact Gita or the Gitisara text that the author of the Gita- 
mana verse had before him. I assumed that his Gita text 
would not contain omissions. Actually however we find 
several verses of the Sankara Recension omitted in certain mss. 
giving the Kashmir Recension : for example ii. 66-67, iv. 35, 
x. 15 (the words of Arjuna), xi. 26 (the words of Arjuna,) xi. 
53 > xvii 27, xviii. 76-77, etc. The difficulty that faced me at 
the end of my operation would have vanished if it were per- 
mitted "to me to assume that the Computator's text did not 
contain x. 15 and xi 26. 



INTRODUCTION 25 

On the question of the 745 stanzas far too much is made 
of Pandit Mahesaprasada's statement about an alleged Persian 
translation of a Glta of 745 stanzas. When I was at Benares, I 
obtained the Persian Mss. on loan from Pandit Mahesh Prasad 
and examined them with the help of a Persian Scholar. The 
Glta translated by Abul Fazl is just the Glta of 701 stanzas 
(xiii.*l being included in the text) ; only, at the end, we have 
a Persian translation of the Gltaprasasti and the Gltamana 
addendum of 5J stanzas ! 

I may also add that the same Persian Translator has also 
translated the Gitasara, which is considerably shorter than the 
-extant Sanskrit original. I am engaged in reconverting the 
Persian into the original Sanskrit with the help of Professor 
Vermaof the Fergusson College, and hope to place our joint 
results before scholars in the near future. When, in my Paper 
above referred to, I suggested that the Computator regarded 
the Gitasara as being the quintessence of the Bhagavadgita, I 
of course knew that the Sara contained a good deal of Saivite 
Tantrism of which the original Bhagavadgita was altogether 
innocent. But that is our view of the Glta. To Commentators 
like Anandavardhana it was the plain actual intention of the 
words of the original. In this connection it is not without 
significance that our Ms. of the Anandavardhinl should have 
the Gitasara tacked on to it. 

Finally, as to the existence of a distinctive Kashmir 
Recension of the Bhagavadgita I may be permitted to restate 
my views with some modification. Not all the two hundred 
and more alleged Kashmirian pathabhedas are exclusively 
Kashmirian. Quite a few are current outside Kashmir, and a 
few others are rejected by some of the Kashmirian writers and 
commentators themselves. But there is a sufficient body of 
Pathabhedas that are found in Kashmirian Mss. of the text, and 
of the Kashmirian Commentaries on the text which have helped 
to preserve the pathas in tact. This was so because there was a 
distinctive Kashmirian script, but particularly because the 
Kashmirian writers and the commentators were the followers 
of a distinctive religious sect. When the head of a religions sect 
say Vasugupta writes his own commentary on an important 



26 BHAGAVADGITA WITH &NANDAVARDHINI 

text like the Gita, the recension underlying that original 
commentary comes to be accepted unquestioned by almost all 
the subsequent writers; and so the recension comes to be 
perpetuated during the dominance of the sect in question. In 
Bengal and Malabar a distinctive script was in use, and that has 
helped to perpetuate some distinctively Bengali and Malayalam 
readings ; but there was not in both these provinces that 
succession of able commentators on the Gita and that sectarian 
domination that was present in Kashmir. Hence it is legitimate 
to speak of a Kashmirian recension of the Bhagavadgita, as it : is 
legitimate, in a smaller measure, to speak of a Ramanujiya 
recension of the Poem. That the recension adds nothing 
distinctive to the tone and tendency of the original text is 
admitted by all including Schradcr himself. 
***** 

When towards the middle of 1941 I realised the importance 
of the Anandavardhin! I decided, if possible, to edit and publish 
the commentary on the occasion of the Gitajayanti which, 
according to the computation accepted in this part of India, fell 
on the 29th of November 1941. Hardly six months intervened, 
and in the present condition of the paper market no publisher 
was found willing to sponsor the publication. I decided 
therefore to make the venture on my own initiative. Messrs. 
Joshi and Lokhande of the Pratibha Press agreed to print the 
work as speedily as I wanted, and they have carried out their 
part of the undertaking fully to my satisfaction. The addition 
of Appendix II giving a comparative view of the Sankara and 
the Kashmirirn Recensions of the Bhagavadglta was an after- 
thought, which increased the bulk of the volume much beyond 
the original estimate. I have brought out a limited edition, 
and have priced it with no idea to financial profit. The work 
was undertaken in a spirit of service, and as such I lay it before 
the discriminating public. 

Om Tat Sat : Brahmdrpanam astu. 
Poona: 29th Nov. 1941} S. K. BELVALKAR 



THE BHAGAVADGITA 
WITH THE ANANDAVARDHINl 

(SANSKRIT TEXT) 




^rft^r 



f| 



^f [ 



ft; 



, ftra- 



rl 



w 



ITR 
9^=5^7 



' 



^!^ [ S^STrf : , va o 



"ii ^TF 



^^^TIW ^8ff 5imM% I 



i q- =^ grarr i 



55*^ 



: \\ 



f [ 



? ^ ? 



ftf^T *T3RT: TO^^: II 



ft 



f^rjprt ^r H^RT^ sr%*rri% * 
: r% ^r srafa il 



ITR 



II 
t l 
: u 
I 
u 



u 



itorsfr T51: 



:>^] 

2u_ ._** *v 9 



-. 3 



R ? 



f| ^r^ ii 



fijp?jr 

( 



: u 



*rar 



k fp*% 



II ^^TT!? 



\ i 



t \ 



^ 



qft w?^swf^ 



RjTOV 






' 



i^^ 



^ ? R 



? <^ 









eg 



inf^rr 



) 



^?) 



IT^RF 



) ^g 



TOPTC 



^r 



: , ^ t \ 



: II ^"^r ^R 

Ir 



) 



^rr 
: II 



m 



ajjfNretni; I 
(t3, 



=37^ sjrr^hrtTT^^ ^ gsr nf^rercr 



tsr 



u ^ 
I 
: II s n 



fulfil: 



TIT 



g. 



ll 



II 



J ii ^ H 



fl II U II 



II ^ II 



II ^H II 



f^rarq; q: tew i 



II ^ \\ 
Tri5TTi% 4 



n ^^ ll 
i 

U ^ U 

I 
II ^^ 1 1 



ft tfKRftta ^T II 

II ^ II 



^Tcl 






tsr: i%| ^Cif^f II ^ II 

! $! Jfll%: ^1351^1^ I 

RRrart^jj II ^ li 
!*i ^T|r^ ^ 
ft $4 I^T ii%^: 

1% $I*fl<^%S! I 

n ^ ii 



n ^ n 



13HRT 

^ 

* 

J 135SIRT 



r, C T%S' fcq^^^R ( i% g 



v 

H 



' f ra 



r: ii 



|| ^ || 



f| 



II tf n 



PIFT 



^^' ?fcf 



UK: 



- J 
: f^rai: Jilt 



: n ^ u 



?rrwi: 



J . 



II <^ n 



II ^ II 



)' 



3 

II ^ II 



: n ?o n 



^ gr^i ^t \ Q* ^ j^ 



:' ffcf 



lf?r : 



5THTR; 



: n ^ n 



?r% 



^1 ? ^ ] 



nun 



^ ?fcf 



ircar 



n ^ n 



ftrifaraft 



?fcf 



|| ^o || 



5TTR: 



M ^? II 



?fci 



II ^ II 



(?ivs) 



: II ^ II 



: %?rrf^r 



fl 



II 's^ II 



n u 



u ^^ u 






11 ^<: II 



u ^^ n 



^r: II ^ II 



* ( 



ffcT 



u ^ n 



II ^R II 



II 3s II 



: STR: 1: 



1 1 ^ 1 1 



:^RR 3 q; II 

: II ^ li 



wr-fTt I%TT 



TPT 



: u ^ n 
' 



n ^ u 



\ I o 



! g 



^rrat 



^4* 



3 



^r^rr 



II ^ II 






II tttf I) 



mm 



;F Rf 



SffrT, 



: ?r SJH: 
IcT 5 



[ R I ^ 



II V^ II 



: II vs n 



SF??T 



II ^ II 



IT 

I 



' ?fcr STFT: 



H V 



[ R I K ? 



^ I 

^i: rf 



^f F%??r 



|f|f Til f| 



5Rr 



II ^^ II 



II ^^ I! 



ml i 

II HH II 






II ^ II 



(% sraf^r torara 

5T5T, T% 5nTT^r!%TPT 
1% SF^Pf RJ slT^T^ II ^ II 



T% 



RMcfT ? 



5 

' ^ft XRf^cT 
5ft 



r?r 



f%j: 



? ' 



if ^ \\ 



r: I 3 r%:, 



2 X 



?jRRr: n 5? il 



f| #T^ 



eft f| 



n ^ 11 



jpn 



n ^ n 



, 



, TT" ?, 



qftat s^ratf% 1 1 ^ 



to 






5TcT 

-J- 



II ^ II 

f^ - 

T| ^^rt ^q^ 



3 



n ^ n 



;, =T 



gi%: 3 ^T g 



^r^r^Fr i 5r^" ^f^o^r^F STTOF 



^nrai'ft it VSR ii 

: I 



: a 



11 v\ 11 



isfrft 



n ^ n 






||jj sjjjfjsjjf qj^r q| f^[^f{5f^|% ij;*p[ || 

Tj ^^T IF^ft 



II R n 



arra uq ti n ^ ll 



I; 



: ^rat 



ft ftfon f^rsr rar 



1TR 



: II 



i 



IE > 



FiSF.ri'.r's'.ij i'vHre 

T.T. I). TiRUr'Al 



5 



fofr 






: i crar 



ftsr ^T T^RT II 
fo: 113 u 



f| 



II u 



n 5 II 



cflf 



*R'T 



p 



5 



: sran 






II vs || 



II ? II 



n ? n 



r II U II 

*n=T3Rr w 

l ? ? u 



ft ft 



R|%I:: I i 



t; 



ir 



II ^ II 



II ^ II 
i%f%: . i 



f i%i%: 



?icr: qi 



?rn% 



TI 



11 ?^ n 



f, 5T 



n 



: II ?<; 



ii ^ n 



: II ^ II 






5cf 



": 3 SIR: 



: ^T: n R n 

* I 



515 



H <i ^i^^ft^ft^r^ra^^f* cf FTT C ^ K ^ 



frH?RBl i sft i 



11 ^ II 



u ^ \\ 



u ^vs n 



fR srar 



f%5FpfFI% 



II 



: n 



^rr 



?fcf 3 



U 



( ^ I \s ) 



: ( K i ^ ) 



<fr 



l TOT f^r^t: HT&: 



II ^ II 



f3pfMra: II ^ II 

srsrr 



II ^ II 



- , 



if 



n ^ II 
i 

: II > 



i TR^T 



n n 



*rr 



( crrr ^r' ?fcf sfw: 



3 1 d ] 



TFT: 



TITBIT 



: i 



n v^ n 



II 



n 



n t^ \\ 



H ^ifestFT: ii 



* 



[ ^ ] 



II ? II 



Qun;?rni^r^^ 



% ; cn t f(' 



n 3 n 



, 
g: I ft 



1 



5flTfJ^IHl% II 



811 



H 



% 123* ^ ^T 5 5% 
: 5 ffir 



II K I! 



*r?fSr?RrT 



II ^ II 



n <: II 



ti% 



r: srfr, 



": ii ?o 



ff 



toft i 



- > *r 



Sp Irr'TFlT 



13RT 



it 






[ 8 1 ? 



353? 



IT^I 



* Ml 






' 51% URT 



\3\ 



( 1 c ) 



?o ) || U II 



irnrrf 



rr 



: u ?s> II 



f| 



3 ?rer: 



: II RR II 



n R^ 1 1 



I <r 



II R II 



t: 



jprr 



^f r% 



II ^H II 



ITRFW 



ft 






* ( 



II ^ 1 1 



' 5Jcf 



%wr % 



u 



f % t 

tr ^F?RT: i ^j^-rw ( ^3, Rk^ ) 



iff% II H^ I! 



I! ^ 1 1 



vs <; 



i 



: u 



II ^^ II 



f rftwfr 
I qftsr^nr, 



qpr- 
u 



wrfi% 

fRn%: flfo ^R^I^ f^r ^T II ^ n 



^TFT II 



?rir% 



f| f T?R ^ 



T%ft 5TTR : 



II ^ II 



II <> II 



1 8 { 



' ( tf I ? S ) ^f 



II v? ? II 



: ii a 11 



^^cW^ 5 ^fcf 3 



( uv 



u ^ n 



F ^TFF^^IF 



t f| 



IR II 

I! ^ II 



n ^ n 



?r 

: I s&fa^ 



i VR f^rr 



: 









i ^5T%f^ ^r^rq: I 
I 



n 







II ^ II 



' 



n ? ? 



srrar siifrwift i 

: *E*Ri[3r] 

irr- II 



\\ ? I 

nrr^r 
: qrst 



^fii-rsirFr: 



II 



^ 



^^ i 



* II 



* II ?^ II 



*Nf 



n 



: II ^ II 



v 3Tcr: 



^TT 3^3 TO^TTI%fcT 



?Z TR': 



II ^ n 



?KKIFT ^^TS i 



: i 



f| ^r4 



j f 



forr WR 



I f| 



^ ^ ) 



t '^:' ifcf qr?: 



1% 5 



p 



: I 



^rr 



: smrf^r *TRra1% i ?itsr 



Tf^^^R[UTF^^ 



- 1 ' 



^T f| 



^rr 



f| 



fi; 



5 apn i 









[ H I 



^r%^^ 

r^N^ri 1 * I 
^r^rr 



^ ) 
* i ^^TF ^r^rr 



: (*jo ? m?) i 



I [ 



: ( ^o 3 I \t ) 



i%r%Ti% 



i 30, i 



tf ? ) 



: I ^arar 



: ( ^ ^^ ) I 



( q* \ \ ^ ) i 



i T%^rr 



trgpgr 



[ H I ? < 



;zr 

STPT: 
i 



i 

( ^ ^ I vs ) i 






?T5lt*Rrep5r 

54 cf^^rf^ g": 

1 1 



5 sr 



TO ^<i II 



- 



f| 



fstf STFT 



5 n T=? T 



sfk m 1 ^ ^iwq^; ' ?fcr ^r 

3 'RTra: ifil ^ 



f 



n R? ii 



T: 



( ^ i 



? K ) ' 

; 1 1? ^ 1 



II ^ II 



f %'t, 



: ' 



3 '%5t' ?fcf 
V ' 



:, 5rsfFf5T ? r c n'Tf ?: rr 
STTR 



ll ^H II 



n ^ n 

: II ^vs II 



TT ^TfPTS^ II 



TT 



Tt 



, ntwr ^RT 



^rr^rf 



t il H u 



, ? 



, ?| 



! ft 



H qgtosro: II 



: ( ^ R ) 



si^igsrg 

1 1 ? 1 1 




: 11 H 11 



T23T Ssftfcr ifcf 



II ^ II 



II ^ n 



'TT'fT 



;, ] 



II 11 



!': ^fcf 



n ^ n 

ft I 
t II vs II 



II 






n ^ II 



II ? II 



II {I II 



^1 \ ^ ] 



II ?? II 



II ? n 



n ^ n 



I ^o 3 ^^ ) 



II ?H II 



fcl 



11 %$ n 



II 



f^rra^t $ m %i% u 



r %frr I SPT ^t'fr *n 



%HT ^r^f%, ^rr^r: l: mi% I ^ ^fri 'rlwilra 1 i%?mi II R? II 

u ^ II 



II RR II 

T^ij^^^TiWT't *?>raf^ I 

II ^ II 






TFrra[. 
s 
: u 



%f% 



t 'q^. CRC' i RT 
' ira 



: ^ SFRT, ?rat 



i ^r 



IRS II 



\\V\\\ 



11 ^ n 



1 1 ^ n 



i frwrt 3 ^ 



[ ^ R ^ 



f RT 



f T% 



*rf 



if 



TFT ^ n 



sfogroforptf WSTS^PT: I 



fT% 



TO i%Tft ^frfJ^JTr WRT^qW JFfFf: ^^r^?^^ JTRT 



TO 
ftsii ^ ^f^r i^ n w n 

r JWSR^S I 
57 ^ 



n ^^ u 



\ rvr * 



I F<FT ^FqiT ^ W II 3H II 

r I r%^if%rcnft ww: ( ? R) I ar 
%a**nwri rr^r^r: ( ? I U) I srsr j^sr^r ^^^rs-^r^: ( ? I 



: II ^ u 



*rat 



fast 



*wn II 



: TOT 



n ^ n 



v 

H fi 



?cT 



j cRT 



^ I S 3 ] 



i 3T ^ i 



I! 3^ ll 






II ? ll 



:, 5TR: 



:' IKJ 



[ ^1 S 



a 



n n 



i 



ii ^^ ii 



?fcf 



hfr*t 55*1% 



or 



n ^ u 



II vs II 






wwFTOTOcq^^ 

sranrfif 



" 



\\ 



II 



SRTOI 



it 



IR if 

'41^^: I f%|TR ^ cRW^I^BR; I! R j) 



r%fi; 



ii ii 

' ( R I ? s, ) 






: TFT: 



ft- 







K 1 



f SHHts*Ip?: 



: n 



TO ^^raf^f ir 



ft 



n 



: TOR SIPI^ !%f%3[f% 

? m w 



^J^P^*^^ II 






r%f fci^ 



I g-qj ^ I f 1%: 



I ? o ] 



5?r: 



^f^rawrar: n 
f^R-nrf 



SIFR Tspl 1 : srarR 



: ll s ll 



[ \3| { 



517(^5 



t ^^r ^r i 



ll U ll 



n ^ ii 



t OTT 



\{ ] 

?(% 

fSr^fer I % *n% ? % g 



cfSf 



1 I 
firfir: ^Ffr^^F^f^'TO^^t^F^F^ 



%fi t^i 3^^ ^ JTRTI < 

n ? n 

TC- 



^r, 



fcrer ^^IT^F: ?FF%: ^n 
?rr%: i 



wsr 



SIFT: 
I cTrr sjfifc: ^r^r^rfls^R 



^rrf^rwrit 



rrnra^nrrficrr:, 



D ?Fnrf'Tr ! ^%T^ qfrsjrrf fa 
^ 3 



t ^nsn%, 



TO ^rs 



f RT 

f| fifsRt 



: II ?v II 






, 3T 



fl; 



: H II 



\\lt\\ 



tr 



STFl% 



33" *HT 



irRf 



;f r^r : 



? 



: i ^ f| ^3^: 
|r% 3 



i irri%f% 



TO 



grft 



f| 



' u % 1 1 



: II ^ II 



5fT?r: H:, 



[ vs 



^raf 



"; II ?^ II 



II 



' 



1 : u ^? u 



ft ^ I R^ 1 1 



3^3 9rar 



: n ^ u 

^ 



l^rsF^ 



n ^ II 



[ o i ^ y 



?r 

I *sMlr*K | J|| i (f 



|| 




' f ra ipgfegtfry: I a q;cr 



' II ^vs it 



TPT 



n 



m 



V 



tf 



fra" 



*Trf*RT ^^ 






it ? it 



RWlftt II R II 



i*nT: II ? II R II 



: Rr: 11 ^ n 



apr% 



n v? n 






^rr, 



5T5T 



?pr 



T: U 



: u ^ n 



*rr 



i ? 



TOTT 



55 



II 



* f ^-* 



ifM% I *r$3 



?wrr 



: II 



T^RRT: ^K: 



? ? 



? y 



si sit 



5 Sit Sit 



Si Si 



5f?rt 






r* M 



r srfrr 



ar 



TOSK 



II 

I 
n 

J il 



1 1 
terror *ircorRr 



r^Tf ?sr 
i%*fr: 



it 



if r CRT: fens ^r^^rr FT^BJT TO *r^ 1 1 

r I 
II 



: n 



i \ \ ] 



^rr 



*j?r 



f is 



^rr ^s 



I wi rr 



: n 



*r 4 ^rrfir 



sralrr: ^r^ 1 1 



fcm 



H <: ii 






rr 



f%t 
%?r TW gftr 



?n 



j ^rar ^ 



it ^ n 




?<> n 



SIR: 

? u U 



$ 5? ^ 



, 3 



II n II 

ftafafcgftfc 
: u ?? il 



n ?^ u 




smr 






?| irf ft&Wi 1 

II ? II 



qpl 

* i 



*^^ ^flr 



II ?^ u 

qts^ | 

li ^ ti 



^ 



f^rar 



: n 



crn% ^f 



3*1 



qr 



: u ?vs ll 



ffif 



":, HIT: 



n ? H 



JR^Rlf ^f 



II ^ II 



wr 



srhsr 



3 






: u 



' KT% 
: i ^qjTfRr^rTt 'R:' ifir 



*:, *rr=r: 



? O 



g 



STFT 



TT 

L i L r e r ij 



6: i ana 

feearch Centre, 

T.T.D. TIRUPATI 



[ <: R 3 






"' 



sir 



^rrar, ^ 



n ^^ n 



f| 



era- e 



*RF: 



n 



s 



r, sr 



f| 






: (?) u 



ftrarftrat 



<i ? 



u 
sari; i 

X 

u 









^r^rr 
- 1 



il ^r^rr ^^ ^PF^sR- 1 f^rraL ^spg 1 ft 



? ? ? 



[ <i K ^ 



?RT: 



I 



: I %& qw^rr^r: T^: i 
%^F^^ 



t \\ ^ 



era* 



3 ^frr: II ^^ II 



Srat 



II ^ II 



sNtar, 



: i 



flr^t 



wr 



: II ^ II 



: II <i II 



?ffi-: ii 



3*fr- 



II 3 II 



II ^ 11 



;? nf^T 



* i 



mi 



i ?r 



11 ^ n 



i%i%: 



II ^ n 



crsrr 



f fcT 



n \s n 



( ^ I ? I ? 



rar^rr 



flsfkr 



1 ^fk 



Hill 



II ^ II 



ifir: II 



n 



* n 



I 



lit ^TR 



5W2&T 
nrr ^ 
WF 
fesfNr ^i^nat ifa 1 1 



: I JTRT?** 
I H gw^r: I ^r fit sn^Rt II 



: II 



*ri%: II 



n s II 



^ nun 



n ? ? n 



^rf 



\\ 



5fRTRf 



%*rrmw 



uf qrf Iff 



?r 






q 



Tt' ffcl 



n ^ ii 



^prr 






ll ? u 



TOT ftrara: TO 






n Ro n 



n 



5 fir 



% 



11 



?rf % SRI; 



H ^^ || 



n 



311 f| 

3 a 

?rr ar 



37TTRT 



I srat 



: u <d n 



?: 11 ^tf II 



TF 



i i ^ li 



^^ 



II ^ I! 



, ?Fn 



mtg 



?r ?r 



I g g?^ 5?r 



, fa 3 



1 : 



5 



: i 



f| g: ii ^ II 



I TT 






?cf 
' 



*TTfr. 



TT 



: i 
3T3T 






: n 



~ 



Ifst sfararore 



tst ^ 
II r < II 



: IR n 

: I 5 



: II R II 



I 3RTft TTrT: 



u n 



II v u 



HIST 



J II Ml 



r%?r% 



aw 



t f%"-i|jcf ^ 



n 



?ct 



[ I 



smf^rar. 



u <\ n 






flt 



f| 



, fi^terr^ 



i 



5RI 



-.' sra 



g?;r 



: I 'fosrt 



[ { o I 



era 



TO 



ii ^ n 



n U II 



1 1 RO n 



fra SFR: 



n H? 11 



n RR u 



FRT 



ftraj: iR 



II 



I 



' f RI 



t o 



\ o \\ ^ 



^ tg-mrtfc 



i u 



T^Hf 



^rr, 



?ra 
l 
' fra 



u ^ II 

u 



II ^o II 



I V^ ] 



it 3? ii 



^3= 



3 



'<Trar 



\\ ^ \\ 



%TT%T 



fH 



1TR" 



l?iT 



'W 



ll ^ II 



II ^ II 



^f^r ftrat 511 n ? 



II 



?r ?frfts4 ^TRt 



TO 



ii 

ft ^gjjRt ^ l^itgt TOT I 

II 



TOT 



I 

'H?crw-' ^ra 



' ?r% 



n ^ n 



n > u 



I 



n <: n 



w. 



II ^ II 



II H II 



t II ^ ii 



ii ? ii 



*rrat 



ft$JT, 



ii ^ ii 



33; 



II ^ II 



ft 



II ^ II 






STFT: 



5 ?;qft- =? grf 



v 'rqr' ?fir 



ifr 'eft f 

OUTSIT STTRn II R^ II 



ft $T 



J U ^ II 



: art 



=d ii 



V 
c. 



f cl 



Tcff T 



' ffcl 



f II 3 



; II ^ ? u 



' ?fcT 



n ^ n 



IT 



u 



n ^ ii 



il ^ u 



ifcf 



?r=r 



TO 



':, SIR: 



ifir 



? I R ] 



II ^> U 



f| 



?ratst% % n 



II ? II 



1 8 : 



?icr 



$ gt 



n u 



n 



n 



?rsr n ^^ u 



n 



: fcf ^Tr^: 



[ U I * 



^ f| 



^ 'ztf 5 fir 

V 'ij^^r' ?fcf 



^ II 

II 



II 



u v n 



:, CRT v<i 



n ^<i n 



II K? II 



II H^ II 



II ^ II 

: u ^ u 



5TWT 



Ht' 



' ?fci 



^o 6 



[ U h it 



u K n 



u ^ n 



: 3Tf 



I 

errr%ri%xr: i ^t^ i^tfj^ m- 



f^rfd I^IFT: 1 5=r TTT^ SN||^I^ srrjfnt II ^ n 



': II II II 



?wt % tfrof^nm 11 ? il 



iT>KF-JHM ~ 



II ^ II 



II R II 



11 ^ n 



mm im imi 



: il ^ ii 11 



: 5W 

TF 
II ^ II 



lit 



SWF 



f| *n%:4 ^T^^M! n H 



3 tfrii 



3 



n ^ u 



Ul ? 3 3 



^Nrar, <F*rfr 






f| 



? ITR 



' II ? il 

: i 
II ?? I 



1 1 ? ? 1 1 



3T3T 



CFT- 



: IRT 



m^r: n ? n 



: II ?y II 



\ 



ft T: t f| % ffcr: 



'ft 



: s 3r far: u ^ n 



II 



irr 



?r% 



n RO n 



: n 






II 



' II 



i srtkfr? 
: I 



II 



5ft?: n 



? 3 1 S ] 



II R II 



^rg 



: I 

5 gnfrt 



? n 



spin 



: II H II 



u ^ u 



n d n 



?? it 



5RT 



nun 



II ^ U 



jprr 



^rat 



n u n 



n ^ \\ 



n ^ n 



cffi 



*?*vrrf^Tr 
^ 1 



it mi 



ll *vs II 

I 



II ^ II 



II ^ II 

3*0 3^- 



'SIR |q' 



3 'W ' fvqg TT5 



ff?: 



STRAIT 



iff fiteftsft ^;% Jif T%3fig; 



^if5tr%: sfrgj: 



* II R^N II 



n 



IR8 II 



j IRH II 



T:, ^r^rr 



11 ^ n 



ii ^ ii 



TOTTWR 



fr^TT ^ 



ft 



"TCt T^ II 



TRT 



ft 



: II ^ n 

I 
n R^ n 



:, r: T^rfa 

I 



n ^ n 



f|; 



( ? ^ R ) 



II 3 II 



II ^ II 



f^rar 



n 



mm 



: H 



II 



: II 



f 



: II 



: I SRT 



^rar* 



u ^ n 



: II tf II 



TITO ^ 



* fan! mi 



11 



II ^ u 



n 



: II 5 II 



11 



II <^ M 



: TO 



V 



II ^ II 



f^raitoi ^raPRp nun 



Tilt ^ II 



: I Co fr 



n ?3 n 







II ? tf II 



n ^ n 



ffcf 



^ ^ \ 



f R 






u 



[ ? 8 1 



'4k 



wt 



^TRT* II 



1 1 



^ ? ^r5T^rr^R [ ? ^T^TT r^R ] 



t 



ft 

_' II 
II ?<J> II tt II 

. N \ 



u 



JJOTT 



isr, 



3TR3RR ^"frf I 
II Ro || 



g 



ll ^^ u 



: fitgfir %i% II ^^ II 



ir: ? 



* ll R^ u 



%:' 



gfcr 5 5fir 

: J ?T% 



$ R vs ] 



f| 



II ^ \\ 



11 ^^ n 



ti 






3 ffif JT 

ifcr ^FT^; JTR: 



., 






r ^ff^ 
II ? n 



WEITCf ^T 



* 1 1 






" f| 



II ^ I! 



d I *i" 

^rr 



r I 



' 



^nrer I W^F^ ^F^r^rR: i ; zrerfir 

f| 
! 



?JOTT: 
^ 

* II 

T I 

: u 
( ?i?v ) ^-^ I 



arg 



n n 



I ?% I 



f^rsnt 



crarr 



: i 



ii ^ ii 



n ^ ii 



frr; 



n \s 



II \s II 



: n II 



: u 



?pTRr 



t R?fh% 



n ? o n 



r% 



37 



(^TO 5 ) 






*rep 



II ?V II 



*rer 



5 



ct^ ;if%^r 



*TFcnf?r 



: 3W> 



: II ?vs II 



fSt 5fRH% W 



f f% 



^rar 



it 



II R II 



: n l^ ii 



J ?fcf 



ifcf 



II m ^113 II 



II v II 



: n s u 



: TO ^ftateratefa m% u 



*nff srrr!^ u MI ^ u 
5ftf% 



5Tff% ^f^Slf^flf^ 1 !. II ^ II 

I 

II t II 



II II 



II ? II 



ftftm: II U II 



VV 



fil 



va ] 



: ! 



: 'I ^ 'I 



3-1*1* H U II 



ITT f?: 



: li ?* n 



: U 



'qpfr' ?T% 



II ^ II 



:' ifit 



era: 



TT3 1 : 



II 



Ji 



n 

: n RO u 



n R? 

: II R? II 



TO TT(% 



II R^ u 



517% 



ftwftsra^Hr 
i r%H; 
u 



t^ff 



' u R u 



^flSTO II 



3 



^rr 



1 1 \ \\ 



f^rsr 



^nr 



f| 



sfct 



I 



% 
t u H u 



II V9 II 

: n vs u 

t I 



fw^rt f^w p anfR: ^ni^i^ft^: II ^ II 

.* i w ; OT5T^q[ i ^rRr^t ^i^c^i 5ftr%i ^f^ 1 * I 

* I f^T* ^q*:, ^lf%^t 11 d II 



cfTf' 



I srfa: srfossrar 









n *o u 

^^, TCR;W 
err n ? 1 1 



*R: 'Eraiwr ^ ^fTi^: II U II 
f%i%: n mi 

5 ^ ??*wfeft ^^r 4: I 

n ^ n 



II ^ H 



' ?fcf 

V '"inigm' 5% 
' ffct 



SfRR <R 3=5*?% 1 1 ^ II 

II ? II 



TOT 






.t \ 

II ^ II 



n ? r A n 



u ^ u 



n ?*\ u 



\\*\\ 



II RR li 



*nror: 



<R: i 
II R? n 



II ^ II 



n 



HR: 



TOT 3*5355: ^Rq?[ n ^ n 



n ^ ii 



n ^ \\ 



II 



: 11 



II ? U 



5JIf: 



u ? n 



r%i 



u 3 II 



ft 



r frfor: 

n tf n 



II x II 



II ^ II 



'g ^mfar' sft st^f5ct i Ti3':, 



II v? II 



u 



II ^ n 

I i^Rr csr^grsfif^ II ^ II 



: II vs II 



TT 'Central 
L i L r a r i) 
i and 
Besearch Teiitre, 

T.T.D.TIRUPAT 



Ar.c. 



g sr^^n 



f| 



5rfr / xT 3 ?s 



( ^i? ) 



nun 



? ? n 



n H n 




3w. I 



II ^ II 



n 



%r% 



3 ft I 

wn% fe: II 



: II? 5 



=r 



f R 



ftifa 



ft 



-' ?ra Jr^f^rrr^:, SFH 

^ ffef ^ f?RT%' ?% H^TScRTS:, !TFT 



: f "s- 



ft 



fl 



5iT<ir%2 



q^R 



: IRQ n 



IR? n 



I R ^ II 



ff 






?r g R^rr, g?j; ^rnre^-^ II ^ 11 

: I 



P*NI&SIHH-<*: i 



trrfr, n*ww ^ ^ $is*v ^ ?rf?rrr%frr 

I 



: ifaftfW: II R\s n 



^Nrrwr I 
: i 



: I f^rrfr Tsarrrrfr I 



\\ [ 



ftlft 



II ^^ II 



II R^ II 



II 



m II ^R n 



ll ^ n 



'Ifrf gfic: 



' eft 



?r nrN?f i 
srsrefr ffa: n 3* ii 



fft:. 



n \ it 



II 



f%f^^ ^3 V 



u ^ u 



m ftft 



f^TT* II tf ? II 



u y^ II 



II ^^ II 



I ^ ] 






; II V?MI 






im II 



n yy n 



II ^ ll 



?. ' 



?ra Tfi 



\ 3 t< ") 5TIT - 



ft stta ifoifm%Ti<r: n vte n 



i I f^Tc!T?RT 



n TO 11 H ll 

; ^r%fi; STTH* I ^nfif^, ^rr 
TO Frgr 



n *\ u 



fif -ft^rTf err:' ffcf ^"3": STR: 






II H^ || 



WHT 
^r^rrTt 



f^rr 



'. I 



:, ^fcf ^wrf^r ^rr^^ i 



n H n 






wft^rii: ^ 



Mr 



TO 



fT^T 



II ^^ u 



ll 



II ^^ II 



n ^ \\ 



n v n 



: II ^^ II 



n 



: ! 



snflrai 



ii ^o n 



n ^ ? u 



CO 

H < 






w ftf 



reft' 



^rrt^r 



: ^flwr 



n ^ n 



an is n $3 u 






f 3 SRW 



n ^y u 



?i 



*r n ^^ II 



: n ^^ ii 



O 



ftr^ro, 



d 



I srrat 



r 5rf RT f^ra 1 : ^fr if 



?rf% iRf 



f^SF 

11 ^ n 



i 



II ^ II 



' 5fcr ^rr^: STF^T: 



*r 



: i %^r m f^f 



vso I) 



'rt mi 



: srost 



, f% 



w: f soft 

n 



* fir 



srw: 



JJT: jpr: II 



git Hcft^rr fztcrfBrgjr i 



I fiRT 



I ?fr: ^^T^T^T: I j% ; 5Rr: 



r% 



: ft 



H ^ n 






^Frar ^frar f?RT 



? ^ 



); * I $ ? 5 I ( Tr^^lTf: ); 



^ i ? i ?<;. 



<i I M ^vs ; <; 



* 



111? 3. 



I ? m; <: l ? I K; d RM 



JFIItff 



? i <:, ' ' 



[ftw] RR? i?; 
fro 

v 



1 ^ i ?vs i vs. 



R i ? ? i s, vs i ? <^ i vs, < 

3% o \\\- \ \\\ \\. 

\ \\\\t( 'fm^rra^f ); tf i u I ; 



I ^ ( ^riRrrir ); m I v, s, (qNrg^TRR ); M <: 



); M ?<J I H^ (^RR^r ); 



\\ \ 



^); ? 1 1 *\\ 



] 



sift 



); v^ ( 



); 3 I 



); ? 5 



I^ ); 



^ i \c i ^^. <^rai ' [ TRi^^TtT^ 1 ?; ] ' i 



' [ TRf^f'fr^T^qL ] ' 



V9. 



; M 



(?); 



M 



R; ^ I I 



'A I 



; ? u 



11 ? ii 



II ^ It 



forar 



Y 3 ferersr 



ll ^ n 



It II t II 

\ 

: I 

nun 



era; 



: IM ^ II 



- w-il 



IR <> II 



II RK II 



IR \ II 



lR<s II 




II 3? II 



IHv II 



n 1% 3 



H 



ii n;ii , iroPift[ 



L * ^ 



ii 



II v 11 



t 



II ararpr: * II 



: II ? 






II v || 



, 



srt ^t SFPSR; II ^ II 



f|; 



II ^ II 



-: \\ 



II ?v 



3 cffi:i% 



Ira ?^R 



tl 



frsr: 



^ftwfir 



ft 



wrier 



jt^rat 3 ftg; 



II v? || 



xrfcT 



II vv || 



r: 



II v^ [ ?] 



*FcfTf% 



wrerfir fSrftrar I q-crr wrerfir 



ftfltfh f* 



sr^f rf^ 



5TPT 



$ri%r%c(T II 



mi 



ft 



r: J| 



f T 



II ^ II 



f| 



xrat 



II ^<J II 



R^TRT: 



II 



n ? il 



ft 



II s II 



II v || 



ff 



II ? <> II 



: II U II 



5T|T 



JJ I 



IRv n 



\\ ^ \\ 



: IRV II 



II \\ II 



Pfflf: ft?ftaifij II ^ II 



: II 



W 



1 1 ^ ? 1 1 



II 



f%f : I 

cff 

: wr^r I R 1 1 



133 



IK 

ff 









n II ? 



*Tt 



ft 



II ? ^ II 



sfir TI 



ft 



II ? ^ II 



|| ? 6 \\ 



: I 



* II 



o \\ 



5% 




1R 



: II Vo 



II V? || 



II ansqprc H II 



fft 



Rftn>3cF II ^ II 



: SET 



ft 



^TR'RII ^ II 



ll ? o II 



II ? ? II 



null 



gq; TOJ II ? ^ fl 



II? ? 



ff ^ 5T^T 

% reran 1 1 ? 



<> ll 



ff 



f| ^ 



* I 



t I 



tir, 

* 



II ^ II 



II 3FTPK 5 II 



r g- ftfe 

l fr 
II 



II ^ II 



II ^ II 



J II H II 



--^- II* 



H \ II 



ff TO 

^r % frrar: II [ = K- n ] 



^f f% 



II ?^ II 



II t$ II 



gat ql^mRfrft lin II 



ggrt 4!^nwi: II 



I^ffcf'l 



%fxT 



frrawrafir ?RTO: 



II ^K II 



II ^ II 



1 



II ^o II 



it 



TO*I m ui ^w^^ra; ftifiSf ftinn; n * % II 
ff ^: i 



3 



i II 



rfft 



sfarat *rt 

II v? || 



II VV || 



TO 



Wftitspr 



: vs I! 



II ^ II 



II v II 



I! H It 



II ^ II 



[\9.\s- 



11 V9 



jpsr: 



??t 



*rrar- 



? ^ II 



?&\ trer 



illicit <RT% ^ IMY ll 



it 



I ? 

t IRf R^T^TfT 

^^rraitra^ I 
fw ft 



: ^ ff 

fcrq; || ?<^ ll 



i 

ftrfif 

II ? ^ II 

* I 

R 

ft*rar: ^^T II .^ <> .11 



II ^^ || 



5 



^TTf * 






5TfT 



II 



T% 



II ? II 



II v ii 



wfcf 



* II H 



%?WT 



11 ? <> II 



II ? ? 



null 



II ?v n 



II ?v 1 1 



I 



SIFT 



: wrt 



A] 



WTf Trf 



STFSRT I 

"235 

^q^cf S=T: IR^ II 
rr4 ^TFR; 

SilcT 



qg; 



f ^ 



[ 



THT 



-H ?v II 



II ?H H 



[ V 






II ^H II 



a 



\ H 



s I 



T fl 



TO TRI^ II 



: ^o ]) 



1 g- 



|| ? il 



tr% 



II v 



: II t II 



II ^ II 



nun 



ft cf 



II? V 



ti ( = ^ ) 
s^rr: 



* 1 

II 1 II 



? o II 



Kqr: 



ftgft 



f^n* 



flr IR? II 



II ^^ II- 
. 

I '. 



^ V 



^ ^ 




prnt 



wll vo 



t U It 






II V II 



II ^ II 



ft 



aat 



cicfr 



TOT 



II ? ? II 



? ? II 



CRT: 



f ft: 



*# ssRrcsnj WTTR 

=T JfRcETrf^ 

H n II 



: ft 






ft 



^Rfft: J^wift: II R ? II ^prPxT ^TT *fcffa: g^^TT^J IR ? II 



IR ^ n f r^% sr ftftror^r af IK * II 



ft *srr 



Sftr: 



^r 
*r f^^fr II ^v n 



[ # ? ] 



| R <i 1 1, 

sr^ha* 
I 



ft 



cRT 



? II 



II H II 



I R <^ 1 1 



IU II 



Wtft 



Tf 



. rx r> 



i m; [ * f 



| v o ^[ 1 ] 



^tsft ^4: ||vo|| 



ft^T 



ii n ii 



II V? II 



g =T 

|| v? || 



II vv 



1% 3 



II vv ,[# ? ] || 



CRT: ^i%^ ^^ 11 vv [ R ] II 
r 5^ % 

ft ^"^ ^ I 

^R^T^nrfer 

^TFT ^W ^t: II YY. [ 1 3 



f^JScfT ^- TF % ^T ^TT 



II H<> II 
f f 



j if, t; a Ceatral 

| 7 - i 

! L ! fi r a r n 



T. 7. D. TTRUPATI 

II J/..,.*, 

/to** 



TJ IR II 



II H II 

<? <v 



111 II 



ff 



\ 



II ? ? II 



II W II 



133 ^r I 
^FK: 
s^g^r: s^ft II 



II ? ? II 



: II ? v II 



5r PPT: II ?^ II 




T: a Jr 



%?r 



5r 

arnq; 



j II ? II 

Fffe 



TO IK I) 



%fxT ^ snf : 
?fcf crfl^: II ? II 

it 



5r 5 II ^ II 



II v II 



T: II H II 



II ?* II 



II ?v n 



f fit t^ cf^TT 



II 

ft 



$ Ira 3^ 



i| 



ff 



TO 5Ti%^ II 



133* 



%fcf 



^ror II u II 



TO 



NcTT 



II ^ II 



g OT: 



II ? <> II 



in ? it 



in Ml 



II? ^ II 



finf^a gw. 






: I 



: I STTf^: I, 

II IK II 



II R I!' 

^H U 



Ml" 



srfT%: iraar 3^ il v II ' i site war 3^^ II v II 



?: I 



r aq; II \ II 



TOT 3TT II ^ II 



RR'TTR ^Rf II ^ II 



STf RR'TT 



II ? II 



*" H 



firfe ^TT 5 ^ II 

I 



H t^ II 



U 



Ifcf: 



Iff- 



i' <i II 



: I 
r 
: II ?o.j| 



v 



133 



II ^ II 



Rf f% 



\\ 




: I 

- 
^ " 



II ^v ti 



TO rar: I 

II ?1 II 



3Tf W 



|Rni 



t 'rf^l II 



II ^3 II 



vvs [ 



i HU 



H ? K ll 



It ?^ II 



im H 



cjy 



sftft 



: it n ii 



v n 



35*13; n t || 



if 



II ?? II 



II ?v n 



\\ 6 \\ 



1R 



T%fe 



II ^? II 



U 



era; 



II ^ II 



11 ^ n 



II ^^ II 



II ^ II 



: 1 



in ? II 



ar 



sifa* ^rar IIU 

3 



ftrarc 



a* 



5TT1T 



; 1 



II VV'H 



wit 



smft 



TO II H II 



II \\ II 



II ^<^ II 



TO" 



fWtsfr H n ^H ll 



5TI ^SW^jrfcT II ^ II 



II ^^ II 



fire: 



II V* n 



FR W 



(I \3\ II 



wra: ^^ II 



*-: II 



: n ^ n 



;: i w: 



(The Kashmir Eeoension of BG ? Stuttgart, 1930) 

r: ^r^* ' ffir 






2* 



V | V 

rxi?r j 



V9 



5? A, 



H, 



? o, 



?fcr 



q-t?TTTV 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR 

Rs. As. 

1. THE BHAGAVADGITA, Authorised Version, 

with complete Pada-Index. Paper As. 8; 
Deluxe Ed. Rs. 2;- Cloth 0-12 

2. Examination of R, Otto' s Attempted Stratification 

of the Bhagavad-Gita, pp. 70 ... ... 1 - 8 

3 . The so-called Kashmir Recension of the Bhagavad- 

Gita 10 

4. Senart's Introduction of the Bhagavadgita, Trans. 

from the original French ... ... ... - 6 

5. The Bhagavadgita 'Riddle' Unriddled 0-8 

6. Svetasvatara Upanisad and the Bhagavad-Gita : 

Essay ... ... ... ... ...0-6 

7. The Ramanujiya Text of the Bhagavad-Gita ... 0-4 

8. Summary of the Bhagavad-Gita by Chapters and 

Stanzas ... ... ... ...0-6 

9. Basu Mallik Lectures on Vedanta Philosophy, 

Lee. 1-6 3-8 

10. BRAHAMASUTRA II. i and ii, with Sankara's 

Bhasya: Text, fEnglish Translation and Notes: 
Bound together... ... ... ... 5-0 

(Also separately for Rs. 2 & Rs. 3 respectively) 

11. Brahmasutrapatha with complete Word-Index ... 1-0 

12. Drstantas in the Brahmasutra ... ... 0-6 

13. Jaimini's Sarirakasutras, Essay ... ... 0-6 

14. Samkhya : Realism or Idealism ... ... 0-4 

15. An Authentic but Unpublished Work of 

Sankaracarya ... ... ,.. ... 0-6 

16. Presidential Address, Philosophy Section, Patna 0-6 

17. THE CREATIVE PERIOD, Being History of 

Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, (jointly with 

Prof. R. D. Ranade) 15 - 



To be had from 

BILVAKUN, 

810 Shi